Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Where is the truth?

My issue with our doing this—and I would like your opinion on this—is that even with today's testimony or today's two letters and two different legal interpretations of the legislation, which I've never actually read..... I'm not a lawyer, but a guy with relatively good common sense, and my concern is that we are going to be dealing on the edge of many legal issues with these witnesses. They have lawsuits against each other. One's in jail, and one's looking at extradition.

Are we not on very dangerous ground here as a committee looking at this without the expertise to be able to do it?

[Rob Walsh]

Well, Mr. Chairman, I welcome that question, because it goes to the heart of what a parliamentary committee is about. Never mind legal proceedings or legal issues. You're a parliamentary committee: ask your questions, get your answers. The only thing you have to think about is not to comment on a case that's before the court; that's the court's business, and you shouldn't be commenting on that case.

What they say here stays here, in that sense. So the witness does not have to worry about what he is saying here, relative to some other proceedings somewhere else, because it doesn't go there. And the parliamentary committee members must be mindful of the fact that while they act responsibly throughout, and not be needless or reckless about what they say, it is still a proceeding of its own purpose, and its integrity rests with itself.

It's not the case that you have to be concerned about what may be said here impacting on legal rights or interests arising elsewhere.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Walsh, I want to go back to an area that my colleague was just questioning you about. I find this really quite interesting. Specifically, just for clarification, you said that a witness can testify fully and completely, and not be concerned that testimony could be used elsewhere.

Just to take it a step further, can they can testify fully, completely, and falsely, and it not be used elsewhere—

[Rob Walsh]

Not true. Parliamentary privilege and the protection it affords is not a licence to lie. You don't have that protection if it's shown that what you gave was false. You have that privilege and protection when you're speaking the truth.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

But in this case, where we're dealing with an individual who faces extradition for very serious charges in Germany, and who is clearly working to stay his extradition orders, there is no reason for him to be forthright or honest, unless he suddenly had an epiphany and decided that the several versions of the story he has given are no longer valid, and he finally wants to give us the real one. There's no reason for him to be forthright or honest, if what he's really seeking to do is to create a furor, and thus, by that means, avoid extradition.

My point is that he doesn't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, order.

I can't hear Mr. Del Mastro. There are a number of conversations going on. We'll be finished in just a couple of minutes. Please bear with us. Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My point is that the very least of his concerns is quite likely that of misleading a parliamentary committee. The charges that would extend from that are nowhere near as significant as the charges he would face should he be extradited to Germany.

[Rob Walsh]

I can't comment on what may be the thoughts of any witness prior to coming here, or the intentions a witness may have in speaking to the committee.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

What charges could he face for perjuring himself at a parliamentary committee, if we could prove it, which is really difficult? But what possible charges would he face?

[Rob Walsh]

Contempt of Parliament, and the House could imprison him—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Like at the Toronto Detention Centre.

[Rob Walsh]

Yes, back to where he came from, but under the order of the House. The limitation is, and some might have an ability to affect this, that the imprisonment could not last beyond the end of the session.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

We might also give him a very stern letter, Mr. Szabo, and really scare him.

I have nothing further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We have one final member on the list who's been duly signed in.

Mr. Mulcair, s'il vous plaît.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, a little earlier today—at 11:42 a.m., to be specific for those people who will want to find the quotation—Mr. Walsh told us that, in the event of a refusal or dilatory tactics by the minister, and I quote:

“The House may take some other action against the minister.”

Would Mr. Walsh be so kind as to tell us exactly what that action might be?

[Rob Walsh]

I used words in a general way to say that we could take other measures against the minister, but they are measures in a parliamentary context.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Privilege?

[Rob Walsh]

That's it. Or contempt.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

First of all, colleagues, it appears that we're not going to have reasonable time to go in camera. I apologize. But I think I will have conversations with the steering committee members--Madame Lavallée, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hiebert, and me--and we will see if there's some consensus on matters of decorum and productivity, suggestions we may have, and share it among ourselves.

I do have one more aspect. Mr. Greenspan had raised with me the issue of the possibility of going in camera for certain matters about which he has some concern. That would be for certain things, not the whole thing, but if there were matters to which Mr. Schreiber would have been advised not to respond, but would be prepared to go in camera on so there was no public record of it, what would happen in that case?

[Rob Walsh]

With great respect to Mr. Greenspan, a very capable lawyer, like a lot of lawyers he's perhaps having difficulty getting his mind out of the legal context and into the parliamentary one. A witness does not have the option of not answering a question. But it is the case, and you've seen it yourself in the past, Mr. Chair, that a witness will have a lawyer who may seek to negotiate to go in camera because of whatever number of reasons, and the committee could do that. However, if the committee chose to not do that, the obligation rests with Mr. Schreiber to answer the questions that are put to him.

It is not the case, for the reasons I gave earlier...and which perhaps lawyers like Mr. Greenspan have a hard time believing, that the testimony given here would not be used elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Finally, if Mr. Schreiber appears but does not have his papers, and has not had any opportunity to prepare even an opening statement, or anything, he may not be as fulsome as he could be to this committee, simply because he doesn't have access. It wouldn't give us an opportunity to ask for records to be provided, or to call for records and papers.

What advice would you have for the committee with regard to dealing with that case in terms of asking him to come back, or to actually allow him an opportunity? Could he in fact come and simply make a brief opening statement and then have the opportunity to go and maybe come back at another time?

We have to decide that, but I'm a little concerned that this may happen in a way that frustrates the effectiveness of having him as a witness.